[quote="hein"]Both sides spent a significant amount of time and resources promoting their position. Then the mayor and the port director (privately?) decide on a third plan with no public input what-so-ever. quote]

Dear hein,

I don't think anything has been privately decided. There has only been an announcement that The Mayor and The Port Director will be making a proposal. I for one, am very much looking forward to seeing it detail.

From what I think I know so far, their proposal includes very much of what has been compiled from much public input._________________CU Sailin'

Last edited by CUSalin on Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

As an annual visitor to Hood River who drops several thousand dollars a year into the local economy I can tell you the cable park would have kept me away.

I choose to go to Hood River, a pretty mediocre sailing site, because of the town. There's no way I'm going to ruin my month of July dealing with a bunch of bro's and waiting in traffic to get to the water front. There's no way I want to sit on the deck of a local brewery and listen to the thumpin' bass coming from the basin.

Mosier and Stevenson have superior sailing and if the cable park would have gone through I would have stayed in one of those towns instead of Hood River. You can call me ignorant or whatever (cable parks are apparently some kind of nirvana for certain people) but those are the facts.

So the mayor is going around offering ultimatums to the public on behalf of Naito without the prior approval of Naito? If you believe that, then I've got a bridge, or better yet a boat basin, I want to sell you.

CUSalin wrote:

I don't think anything has been privately decided. There has only been an announcement that The Mayor and The Port Director will be making a proposal.

As for the cable park - such a bummer, and the terrible thing is that a few highly vocal people are going to walk around feeling like they won - when really, it's the entire town of Hood River, its kids, and visitors, who got screwed so a few people could sit smugly in their kayaks.

I am a long-time local, windsurfer and kiter, and my feeling is that the overwhelming majority of people opposed the cable park, so I'd say it was "a few highly vocal people" wanting the cable park - not the other way around.

I'm also not a big fan of the hotel project, but a nicely developed basin will benefit the community, and the hotel development, tremendously.

Now if the cable park distraction actually goes away, maybe people will start to comment on the horrible architecture of the hotel complex! Have you seen the renderings? What are they thinking? That has made me wary of the Naitos
from the start.

As for the cable park - such a bummer, and the terrible thing is that a few highly vocal people are going to walk around feeling like they won - when really, it's the entire town of Hood River, its kids, and visitors, who got screwed so a few people could sit smugly in their kayaks.

Will there eventually be more people using the basin? Sure. As many people, having as much fun, as if there was a cable park? Never.

Do tell all mighty Josh - You seem to know what the majority want. Did you conduct a poll of the citizens and visitors of Hood River to determine what they wanted and how they have fun? I doubt it, but if you did, please share the details.

Your proclamation sounds more like the self aggrandized statement of a narcissist who does not have the objective capacity to see any other point of view but his own. Nobody can have as much fun as a cable boarder.

To speak in your terms, if the cable park was approved: It's the entire town of Hood River, its kids, and visitors, who got screwed so a few people could stand smugly on their wake boards and go round and round being pulled by a mechanical device.

As for the cable park - such a bummer, and the terrible thing is that a few highly vocal people are going to walk around feeling like they won - when really, it's the entire town of Hood River, its kids, and visitors, who got screwed so a few people could sit smugly in their kayaks.

Will there eventually be more people using the basin? Sure. As many people, having as much fun, as if there was a cable park? Never.

Do tell all mighty Josh - You seem to know what the majority want. Did you conduct a poll of the citizens and visitors of Hood River to determine what they wanted and how they have fun? I doubt it, but if you did, please share the details.

Your proclamation sounds more like the self aggrandized statement of a narcissist who does not have the objective capacity to see any other point of view but his own. Nobody can have as much fun as a cable boarder.

To speak in your terms, if the cable park was approved: It's the entire town of Hood River, its kids, and visitors, who got screwed so a few people could stand smugly on their wake boards and go round and round being pulled by a mechanical device.

News flash everyone!! There are A LOT of people standing on either side of this issue and even a few in the middle. Please stop all of this 'Your point is invalid, because I speak for the majority' BS. There are 2 distinct and divided majority groups who either think cable park good or cable park bad. Let's move on.

I, like Josh, happened to see a better future for the Basin and HR with a cable park, but that is not where this is going to end up. Am I ok with that? Yes. Would I rather have a cable park? Yes. Is this a better outcome than tying-up the Basin in legal battles for years? Yes. Is that an unfortunate precedent to set, I think so. TBH, I would have rather lost the park project to a public vote than litigation limbo fears, but it is what it is. And if this new proposal can save some community face, then I also think that's a good thing moving forward.

nicorico writes:
"Please stop all of this 'Your point is invalid, because I speak for the majority' BS. There are 2 distinct and divided majority groups who either think cable park good or cable park bad. Let's move on."
_____________________________________
"There are 2 distinct and divided majority groups who either think cable park good or cable park bad." Really? 2 majority groups of those for and against the cable? How can there be 2 majority groups in any single issue? I'd like to see your research on that one.

And as for "litigation limbo fears"? What are you afraid of? If you had a valid legal argument, you would be looking forward to a legal resolution. I never heard one legal argument from the supporters in regard to HOW they could obstruct public waters in the basin. There was a lot of talk and wishful thinking about WHY they wanted the basin (fun, jobs, increased traffic, good for the economy, etc) but nothing about HOW they could achieve what they want in view of the Oregon State public use doctrine, which holds all navigable waterways in the State of Oregon in trust for public use.
My only surprise is that it took this long to come to the conclusion that the project was a no-go from the very start.

nicorico writes:
"Please stop all of this 'Your point is invalid, because I speak for the majority' BS. There are 2 distinct and divided majority groups who either think cable park good or cable park bad. Let's move on."
_____________________________________
"There are 2 distinct and divided majority groups who either think cable park good or cable park bad." Really? 2 majority groups of those for and against the cable? How can there be 2 majority groups in any single issue? I'd like to see your research on that one.

And as for "litigation limbo fears"? What are you afraid of? If you had a valid legal argument, you would be looking forward to a legal resolution. I never heard one legal argument from the supporters in regard to HOW they could obstruct public waters in the basin. There was a lot of talk and wishful thinking about WHY they wanted the basin (fun, jobs, increased traffic, good for the economy, etc) but nothing about HOW they could achieve what they want in view of the Oregon State public use doctrine, which holds all navigable waterways in the State of Oregon in trust for public use.
My only surprise is that it took this long to come to the conclusion that the project was a no-go from the very start.

So much for moving on huh? ...

Ok sorry, 2 large groups. And you know what I'm talking about. You're just trolling now. Were you going through withdrawals or something this last week or so?

But since you apparently need something to do, please feel free to enlighten us with your legal expertise on this subject and don't forget to sight sources.

And here's a good starting point:

(http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/NAV/Pages/whoownsthewaterways.aspx)

Question: What does the term "navigable" mean?

Answer: Federal court decisions have developed the following test to determine whether a waterway is "navigable" for "title" (that is, public ownership) purposes. The elements of the test are whether the waterway:

-At the time of Oregon statehood in 1859;
-Was used or was susceptible to being used;
-In its natural and ordinary condition;
-As a highway of commerce;
-Over which trade and travel were, or could have been conducted;
-By a mode of trade and travel on water that was customary in 1859.

here you go nicorico. I'm afraid you have confused "navigation for title", a federal law that stretches back to statehood in 1859, with the public use doctrine, a State of Oregon common law.
Here is how navigable is defined in terms of the public use doctrine:

"Guilliams and Luscher are the Oregon Supreme Court’s most recent opinions on the
public use doctrine in Oregon. The public’s common law right to use a waterway independent of
state ownership is established by the line of cases culminating in these decisions. Whether a
waterway is “navigable” so as to be subject to those rights depends on its capacity, in its natural
state, “to afford the length, width and depth to enable boats and vessels to make successful
progress through its waters.” Gulliams, 90 Or at 26. Guilliams and Luscher make clear that a
waterway’s suitability for recreational boating is sufficient to render it navigable. If a waterway
is navigable, Guilliams and Luscher suggest that the permitted public uses include a broad range
of activities involving the use of the waters."

Again, know the facts before you claim to know what you are talking about. You don't need to be a lawyer, just be able to read.

here you go nicorico. I'm afraid you have confused "navigation for title", a federal law that stretches back to statehood in 1859, with the public use doctrine, a State of Oregon common law.
Here is how navigable is defined in terms of the public use doctrine:

"Guilliams and Luscher are the Oregon Supreme Court’s most recent opinions on the
public use doctrine in Oregon. The public’s common law right to use a waterway independent of
state ownership is established by the line of cases culminating in these decisions. Whether a
waterway is “navigable” so as to be subject to those rights depends on its capacity, in its natural
state, “to afford the length, width and depth to enable boats and vessels to make successful
progress through its waters.” Gulliams, 90 Or at 26. Guilliams and Luscher make clear that a
waterway’s suitability for recreational boating is sufficient to render it navigable. If a waterway
is navigable, Guilliams and Luscher suggest that the permitted public uses include a broad range
of activities involving the use of the waters."

Again, know the facts before you claim to know what you are talking about. You don't need to be a lawyer, just be able to read.

Facts? lol. You quote opinion sir. The title of the document you failed to mention contains that very word even.

First, I did not claim to concretely know one way or the other in reference to public use. You assumed I did for some reason. I merely posed a question as a response to your legal hubris.

Now I have read the same opinion you failed to source as I requested, so I will for reference:

There is a lot in here. Keeping in mind the particular and unique circumstances of the Basin, Columbia, Hood River, and Bonneville Dam, after reading this I would still not lay claim one way or the other. It *might* be prudent to side your way as the attorney general *suggests*, but that does not mean it would be determined that way in a court in this specific case. Why is that so hard to understand?

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum